As 2025 has come to an end, our Firm finally has a moment to look back at a momentous year. At the Firm, we have spent the last twelve months side-by-side with our clients, navigating everything from the “big” life-changing cases to the tricky day-to-day legal hurdles.
The heart of our practice has always been the stories behind the docket numbers. This year, we have seen firsthand that these are not just cases – they are worries that keep our clients up at night.
Beyond individual disputes, our work this year has spanned the full spectrum of the legal experience. Our Firm spent time as both a shield and a voice for those navigating the high-stake world of litigation. We have focused on ensuring that our clients’ rights are protected and their stories are heard clearly.
Our Firm actively ensured that fairness is not just a policy but a lived reality, helping both sides navigate the complexities of the modern working world. In the boardroom, our Firm has helped organizations stay steady and compliant, focusing on stripping away the technical scarce factor of corporate rules, providing clear-eyed strategies that allow our clients to focus on growth while we handle the legal complexities of their operations.
Our firm guided families through the emotional and financial maze of tax and succession planning through the emotional and financial maze of tax and succession planning. We believe that protecting a lifetime of hard work should not be a burden, and our goal has been to turn confusing red tape into a clear path toward long-term peace of mind for the next generation.
The law is not just something found in dusty old books: for our Firm, it is a living, breathing system that’s constantly growing. Our Firm believes that it is a balance between evolution and precedent.
Precedent is the steady ground we stand on, while evolution is how the court adapts those rules to keep up with our modern world. To give our clients the best advice, we keep a close eye on the latest Supreme Court rulings. This past year was particularly insightful, as the judiciary refined key doctrines that directly impact the way we navigate the legal world.
Below, we have highlighted some of the most notable rulings from 2025 that have shaped our practice and how it helped us protect your rights:
|
CRIMINAL |
||
|
CASE TITLE |
TOPIC |
SUMMARY |
|
Managinip v. Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No. 222312-14, 20 May 2025.
|
Freeze Orders may include Related Accounts and Guidelines. |
The Supreme Court reiterated that the law allows related accounts to be frozen, even if the exact term is not stated in the AMLA. These accounts all under the broader phrase “monetary instrument or property related to unlawful activity” under Section 10 of Republic Act No. 9160.
The Supreme Court also laid down the following guidelines:
|
|
XXX264870 v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No.264870 |
Marital Infidelity and VAWC |
The Supreme Court stated that marital infidelity per se is not an act of violence against women and their children criminalized under Republic Act No. 9262.
The acts complained of, which are the means of committing the offense, should be evaluated on whether they were done with the intention of “causing mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule, or humiliation to the women or her child.”
It is when these acts are done with the intent to tilt the scales of power within the relationship against the woman, causing her to lose her autonomy does the State have a legitimate interest in punishing such acts. |
|
CIVIL |
||
|
CASE TITLE |
TOPIC |
SUMMARY |
|
Jaaziel Salva-Roldan v. Lory Roldan, G.R. No. 268109, 3 March 2025 |
Concealment of Homosexuality |
The Supreme Court stressed that it is the concealment of homosexuality constitute of fraud that serves as a valid ground to annul a marriage. |
|
Ericson Cabotaje v. Republic, G.R. No.248569, 15 January 2025 |
Psychological Incapacity |
The Supreme Court has upheld and reiterated that the alleged psychological incapacity must be shown to be grave, incurable and juridically antecedent. |
|
Benedicto Batara Ocampo v. Noblesa Batara-Sapad, G.R. No. 256343, 2 April 2025 |
Sale of Land through verbal and unwritten agreement can be binding |
The Supreme Court stated that the sale is still considered valid even without a written contract if it has already been fully or partially carried out. Further, taking possession of the land and making improvements on it are strong signs that a verbal sale had already taken place. |
|
LABOR |
||
|
CASE TITLE |
TOPIC |
SUMMARY |
|
Paolo Landayan Aragones v. Alltech Biotechnology Corporation, G.R. No. 251736, 2 April 2025 |
Employer-Employee Relationship |
The Supreme Court reiterated that the Four-Fold Test is used when the issue turns on the existence of an employer-employee relationship, and the employer denies the existence of such. |
|
Rhoda Amor v. Constant Packaging Corporation, G.R. No. 259988, 19 May 2025 |
Illegal Dismissal/ Constructive dismissal |
The Supreme Court reiterated that where both parties in labor case have not presented substantial evidence to prove their allegations, the evidence is considered be in equipoise. In such a case, the scales of justice are tilted in favor of labor. |
|
Santiago DJ. Silliano v. JGC Philippines, G.R. No. 273562, 24 February 2025 |
Management Prerogative |
The Supreme Court stated that preventive suspension is not a penalty but a disciplinary measure to protect life of property of the employer or the co-workers pending investigation of any alleged infraction committed by the employee. Thus, it is justified only when the employee’s continued employment poses a serious and imminent threat to the employer’s or co-workers’ life or property. |
|
COMMERCIAL |
||
|
CASE TITLE |
TOPIC |
SUMMARY |
|
Jaime T. Dee v. Unionbank of the Philippines |
Three-year Winding Up period |
The Supreme Court reiterated that the trustee may continue to prosecute a cased commenced by the corporation within three years from its dissolution until the rendition of the final judgment, even if such judgment is rendered beyond the three-years.
In other words, if the three-year extended life expires without a designated receiver or trustee, the board of directors or trustees may continue to act as trustees by legal implication to complete the corporation’s dissolution. |
|
TAX |
||
|
CASE TITLE |
TOPIC |
SUMMARY |
|
Commission on Internal Revenue v. Estate of Mr. Charles Marvin Romig, G.R. No. 262092 |
Foreign Deposits |
The Supreme Court stated that under Republic Act No. 6426, Section 6 specifically states that all foreign currency deposits, including interest and all other income or earnings of such deposit are hereby exempt from any and all taxes whatsoever irrespective of whether or not these deposits are made by residents or non residents as long as the deposits are eligible or allowed under aforementioned laws |
|
OTHER |
||
|
CASE TITLE |
TOPIC |
SUMMARY |
|
Denise Ellison M. Viña v. Stephanie Oteyza Ty, G.R. No. 274935, 18 August 2025 |
Use of Father’s Surname |
The Supreme Court Stated that nonmarital children may use the surname of their father if the father expressly recognized their filiation through the record of birth appear in the civil registry, or through an admission in a public document or private handwritten instrument made by the father. |
|
City Government of Pasay v. Arellano University |
Just compensation |
The Supreme Court reiterated that just compensation means the value of the property at the time of the taking. It means a fair and full equivalent for the loss sustained. All the facts of the condition of the property and its surroundings, its improvements and capabilities should be considered. |
These milestones remind us that while the law provides a stable foundation, it is never static. It grows as we grow, and it adapts to the new realities of the modern world. For 2026, our Firm reaffirms its commitment to staying ahead of these changes, delivering solutions that are not only modern and strategic, but also effective and enduring.